Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,626
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
It would generally be written into the sale agreement. If the Glazers end up holding 25% or something, Ratcliffe couldn't just disregard the agreement and purge them. (Well, there are mechanisms that allow it, but generally he wouldn't/ wouldnt need to)
He doesn't need to purge the Glazers. There are only half of the current board of 12 directors. In the event he gains control some directors will likely leave. Ratcliffe can then leverage his controlling stake to appoint or nominate new board members that will vote with him over the Glazers. This is assuming that the Glazers will for some reason vehemently oppose everything Ratcliffe wants to do having just sold control of the club to him. Weird but ok, I guess.
 

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
10,399
He doesn't need to purge the Glazers. There are only five on the current board of 12 directors. In the event he gains control some directors will likely leave. Ratcliffe can then leverage his controlling stake to appoint or nominate new board members that will vote with him over the Glazers. This is assuming that the Glazers will for some reason vehemently oppose everything Ratcliffe wants to do having just sold control of the club to him. Weird but ok, I guess.
If Ratcliffe wants to invest in the stadium and wants to issue fresh shares for that investment. You think the Glazers will pony up the amount because if they don't their holdings will be diluted. What happens in that case when such a proposition is tabled to the Board?
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,626
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
You think any Glazer who has a stake with the club will not want to be part of the Board? They could have recused themselves now itself but they perhaps don't trust their own siblings enough, let alone someone outside the family with the majority shares.

You can bet that if they all stay, they will all have a say in it and that will perhaps be on of those points that will be long drawn out. Ratcliffe will still have the majority on the Board, but it will be a simple majority rather than a 2/3 one. I am just trying to counter the point that this is fine because the Glazers will have no say in the running of our club. That's just not how any investor will think, let alone ones who are reducing their stake in a staggered manner and the main reason is to get more money down the line.
As mentioned this assumes the Glazers will be opposed to everything Ratcliffe wants to do having just sold their control of the club to him.
 

FlawlessThaw

most 'know it all' poster
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
29,601
You don't even have to be dead set against the Qatari bid, just need to dead set against the Glazers running the club. It seems Jassim doesn't want to meet the Glazer's asking price (for like what 6-7 months and not showing signs of doing it any time soon either?). So if he pulls out, do you want the Glazers to keep running the club with minority investments? At least, SJR is trying to find other ways to take control of the club and in a few years remove the Glazers completely.

There's place to be emotional, but don't be stupid because of your emotions.
Well first off, it's not like anyone here has an influence over the decisions being made. So if people are being stupid because of their emotions here, it's not a big deal. I personally am of the opinion that majority of the people who are against the Qatari bid would prefer the Glazers to remain in charge over the Qataris so they will bend over backwards to whatever SJR comes out with. Of course the proposition for Sir Jim with the Glazers in minority control is probably better than the Glazers but I've not been a fan of how Sir Jim has approached this bid to be honest and his own track records with clubs he has owned.
 

tenpoless

No 6-pack, just 2Pac
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
16,352
Location
Ole's ipad
Supports
4-4-2 classic
The hunchback ogres really need to leave us in peace. Even when they have stupidly big offers they still take too long to decide. The greed... its disgusting.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
So you think that the Board comprising of Glazers will have no say in the club with a substantial stake tied to the club? Will Ratcliffe transfer the loan to Ineos without a complete takeover? Will the Glazers allow a rights issues for infra investments knowing their shares would get diluted and thus they get fecked when the derivates are exercised.

Ratcliffe is no mug and I bet the Glazers know this. I still find it difficult to believe that some of you think the Glazers will have no say in how the club runs with about 40% controlling stake in it. That is just silly thinking and any investor will laugh at that suggestion.
I am unsure what gave the impression I was requesting more. Argue with Dwazza - I'm only half awake, I've nowhere near the energy required to entertain you.
 

Loon

:lol:
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
9,215
Location
No-Mark
So you think that the Board comprising of Glazers will have no say in the club with a substantial stake tied to the club? Will Ratcliffe transfer the loan to Ineos without a complete takeover? Will the Glazers allow a rights issues for infra investments knowing their shares would get diluted and thus they get fecked when the derivates are exercised.

Ratcliffe is no mug and I bet the Glazers know this. I still find it difficult to believe that some of you think the Glazers will have no say in how the club runs with about 40% controlling stake in it. That is just silly thinking and any investor will laugh at that suggestion.
I’m confused. How will the Glazers have 40% if Ratcliffe is buying most of their shares and they only have 69% to sell?
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,626
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
If Ratcliffe wants to invest in the stadium and wants to issue fresh shares for that investment. You think the Glazers will pony up the amount because if they don't their holdings will be diluted. What happens in that case when such a proposition is tabled to the Board?
They'll be class A shares and have little to no impact on the value of the Glazer holdings due to the derivative contract they'll have with Ratcliffe.
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,340
Location
bin
Six new pages in the last four hours, after the thread has been practically dead for days. I hoped that this meant there was some late night news.

But there's feck all new news. You're all just regurgitating the same shite as before.

feck you. I love it, but also feck you.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,626
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
So you think that the Board comprising of Glazers will have no say in the club with a substantial stake tied to the club? Will Ratcliffe transfer the loan to Ineos without a complete takeover? Will the Glazers allow a rights issues for infra investments knowing their shares would get diluted and thus they get fecked when the derivates are exercised.

Ratcliffe is no mug and I bet the Glazers know this. I still find it difficult to believe that some of you think the Glazers will have no say in how the club runs with about 40% controlling stake in it. That is just silly thinking and any investor will laugh at that suggestion.
Derivatives don't work like that. The agreement will indicate a set price for a particular date.
 

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
10,399
I’m confused. How will the Glazers have 40% if Ratcliffe is buying most of their shares and they only have 69% to sell?
I meant voting stake. They currently hold 90% voting power. Assuming they sell off 50% to Ratcliffe, it would still leave them with about 40%. Unless Ratcliffe is getting more than that.
 

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
10,399
Derivatives don't work like that. The agreement will indicate a set price for a particular date.
Surely it will depend on the total shares they hold, else it is just a fixed buyout even if they hold 1 share by the time the clauses kick in.
 

Loon

:lol:
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
9,215
Location
No-Mark
I meant voting stake. They currently hold 90% voting power. Assuming they sell off 50% to Ratcliffe, it would still leave them with about 40%. Unless Ratcliffe is getting more than that.
It would be odd of Ratcliffe or Jassim to spend that kind of money and not have control.
 

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
10,399
They'll be class A shares and have little to no impact on the value of the Glazer holdings due to the derivative contract they'll have with Ratcliffe.
Thanks for explaining. So class B shares won't have any dilution at all even if other shareholders get diluted?
 

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
10,399
It would be odd of Ratcliffe or Jassim to spend that kind of money and not have control.
50.1% will represent controlling stake but not necessarily total control on all decisions. That depends on the Board makeup. I just hope that if Ratcliffe does come in like this, he finds a way to feck the Glazers.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,626
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
I meant voting stake. They currently hold 90% voting power. Assuming they sell off 50% to Ratcliffe, it would still leave them with about 40%. Unless Ratcliffe is getting more than that.
I don't like math and this one is a doozy.

If what you say is correct, the Glazers own 69% of the shares and have 90% of the voting power. Ratcliffe will acquire 50.1% of the club from their holdings so this should give him around 64% of the voting power. (50.1/69=.72), 72% of 90 is 64%. That might actually be enough for him to exercise complete control.

edit: I'm terrible at math so this may not be correct.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
Six new pages in the last four hours, after the thread has been practically dead for days. I hoped that this meant there was some late night news.

But there's feck all new news. You're all just regurgitating the same shite as before.

feck you. I love it, but also feck you.
If you have a particular love for one of the more obscure Glazers then there is some very exciting gossip.

I keep trying to sell people on Kevin but to no avail.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,626
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
Thanks for explaining. So class B shares won't have any dilution at all even if other shareholders get diluted?
The way I understand a futures derivative it is an agreement for Ratcliffe to buy (or the Glazers to sell) their shares for a fixed price on or by a fixed date. So their payout is set the day the derivative contract is agreed and any share price, share issue or other financial or market event has no impact on the contract.
 

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
10,399
I don't like math and this one is a doozy.

If what you say is correct, he Glazers own 69% of the shares and have 90% of the voting power. Ratcliffe will acquire 50.1% of their holdings so this should give him around 64% of the voting power. (50.1/69=.72), 72% of 90 is 64%. That might actually be enough for him to exercise complete control.
I could be wrong here and initially I thought they were just talking about 50.1% of the total voting power. But if they are selling him 50.1% of the total shares, then he will have complete control.

If that's the case, and I am pointing this again, I really hope Ratcliffe fecks the Glazers somehow.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,626
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
I could be wrong here and initially I thought they were just talking about 50.1% of the total voting power. But if they are selling him 50.1% of the total shares, then he will have complete control.

If that's the case, and I am pointing this again, I really hope Ratcliffe fecks the Glazers somehow.
It's ok, I don't think anyone except Raine and the Glazers know the true details in all of this. The rest is guesses and bad math. :lol:
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,340
Location
bin
If you have a particular love for one of the more obscure Glazers then there is some very exciting gossip.

I keep trying to sell people on Kevin but to no avail.
:lol: fair enough
 

Loon

:lol:
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
9,215
Location
No-Mark
It's ok, I don't think anyone except Raine and the Glazers know the true details in all of this. The rest is guesses and bad math. :lol:
Ive asked this before, but didn’t get an answer, how much more potentially could the Glazers make remaining with the club rather than selling up? Is it a vast sum?
 
Last edited:

owlo

Full Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
3,252
He doesn't need to purge the Glazers. There are only half of the current board of 12 directors. In the event he gains control some directors will likely leave. Ratcliffe can then leverage his controlling stake to appoint or nominate new board members that will vote with him over the Glazers. This is assuming that the Glazers will for some reason vehemently oppose everything Ratcliffe wants to do having just sold control of the club to him. Weird but ok, I guess.
Hence 'he wouldn't need to.' That said, rogue directors can be a pain in the ass.
 

Amarsdd

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
3,299
I could be wrong here and initially I thought they were just talking about 50.1% of the total voting power. But if they are selling him 50.1% of the total shares, then he will have complete control.

If that's the case, and I am pointing this again, I really hope Ratcliffe fecks the Glazers somehow.
Its 50.1% of the total shares based on reports.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,626
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
Hence 'he wouldn't need to.' That said, rogue directors can be a pain in the ass.
I'd assume that all or most of Arnold, Baty and Stewart would leave as they are chief execs who would likely be replaced by people Ratcliffe brings in. That leaves Leitao, Sawhney and Hooks. I don't know what their relationship is with the Glazers and if any affinity they had with them would impact their votes as far as doing good things for the club goes. If all of the current board members stay I'd guess we'd get a 13th in Ratcliffe and then things get interesting if he replaces all of the six non-Glazers mentioned here.
 

Castia

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
18,411
Sounds fecking awful the more we get to hear about these Sir Jim bids.
 

Alonzo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
347
Fair enough. English is not my first language and that wasn't meant to disrespect anyone (I think I literally said I understand/respect the moralists view). In my books it makes far more sense to those who are trying to sell the ineos bid as something good for the club
Got ya mate. Yep fair enough.
 

MarkoDolohov

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 17, 2023
Messages
150
Location
Greater Manchester
Where are we now pro INEOS people?
Drafting up posts about being Virtue Signalling FC. Since the news dropped you heard anything or read anything from the Qatari camp? Not saying you're an ITK just that I've noticed you tend to post stuff in this thread about Jassim potential ownership.

Idiots all of them
Bro, I got the same feeling on the eve of the Brexit Vote. Turkeys voting for Christmas. This move which is sadly looking likely is a major dub for INEOS and a L for Qatar investment. We will remain broken, as Broken Britain is now 13 years on post Tory control.
 

nazanto

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 10, 2013
Messages
398
Location
Cloud
I don't understand how this will benefit Ratcliffe/INEOS tbh. Fans surely will expected money pumped to improve the club as a whole from transfers to facilities to stadium etc. So by maintaining Glazers at where they are albeit as minor majority, will Ratcliffe/INEOS put the money in? Because at the end of day, to get full control of the club, Ratcliffe/INEOS will still have to pay for remaining Glazers share right? If let say hypothetically Ratcliffe/INEOS spend hundred of millions into the club that will rise the club valuation, won't that make it will cost much more money when Ratcliffe/INEOS to buy out the Glazers?

Am dumb sorry/
 

BTG

Full Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
184
At this point
I'm convinced they just wanted a valuation for further loans.
 

city-puma

Full Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
3,280
Location
NYC
The way I understand a futures derivative it is an agreement for Ratcliffe to buy (or the Glazers to sell) their shares for a fixed price on or by a fixed date. So their payout is set the day the derivative contract is agreed and any share price, share issue or other financial or market event has no impact on the contract.
If it’s like what you described, we normally call it a forward contract rather than a futures contract cause futures contract is traded on exchange and need to mark to market daily.
from the different sources, assuming true, my understanding is that it is more like an option rather than forward contract. They have the option to buy their shares within an agreed exercise window. It’s an option rather than obligation. In the other words, they can choose not to purchase their shares.
 

Gurtej

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
524
From one greedy stingy businessman to the other.
None of us know what SJR has planned post takeover.

May be getting 51% control so that he can pay off debt and invest in team and stadium is the right approach and he can always buy back other shares accordingly over the next 5-10 years.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,626
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
If it’s like what you described, we normally call it a forward contract rather than a futures contract cause futures contract is traded on exchange and need to mark to market daily.
from the different sources, assuming true, my understanding is that it is more like an option rather than forward contract. They have the option to buy their shares within an agreed exercise window. It’s an option rather than obligation. In the other words, they can choose not to purchase their shares.
Cheers. You may well be right although what I have read lately is that Ratcliffe will buy the remaining Glazer shares after a set period of two or three years.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
2,474
Location
Not far enough

city-puma

Full Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
3,280
Location
NYC
Cheers. You may well be right although what I have read lately is that Ratcliffe will buy the remaining Glazer shares after a set period of two or three years.
Yeah, maybe you are right. Or, it’s the last minute noise intentionally released by Glazers to try to lure Qatar makes another bid. After FA cup, it should be the time for them to make announcement. If not, what can we, the world wide fans, do? Really pathetic situation if so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.